Mihir Rajamane

Undergraduate, BA (Jurisprudence), University of Oxford. Junior Researcher, Centre for Law & Policy Research. Junior Staff Writer, Supreme Court Observe.

Supreme Court Observer

February was a busy month. It began with a full bench delivering a crucial judgment on the grant of bail under the UAPA law. Later in the month, the Court heard new challenges to the Whatsapp Privacy Policy and sedition law. It went on to admit a new public interest litigation petition concerning the grant of minority status.

On the judges’ front, the Court is yet to make headway to fill up the vacancies. As reported in the Indian Express, the collegium seems to be at an impasse regarding the e

Supreme Court Observer

In 2018, the State of Maharashtra passed the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018 ('SEBC Act') to extend reservations to the Maratha community. Specifically, the State Legislative Assembly granted Marathas 16% reservations in education and public employment.

Various litigants challenged the SEBC Act before the Bombay High Court. After 40 days of oral arguments, the High Court delivered its judgment in 2018. It upheld the Act but reduced the percentage of seats reserved for Mara

Supreme Court Observer

The Supreme Court will decide if electoral laws need to be reformed to accommodate new technology to expand voting rights to migrants, NRIs and to curb fraudulent votes.

K. Sathyan is a political activist from Kerala. He has filed a public interest litigation seeking a range of electoral reforms.

Currently, if a person has to enrol as a voter he/she needs to be an ‘ordinarily resident’ in the constituency. This is defined in S. 20 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. People who are t

Supreme Court Observer

On 24th February 2021, the Supreme Court, in Parmar Samantsinh Umedsinh v State of Gujarat & Ors, upheld a Gujarat municipal law that allowed multiple members to be elected to a local body from a single municipal ward. It confirmed that neither the Constitution’s scheme for Municipalities nor the empowerment of people through reservations was undermined by the Gujarat law. The judgment clarifies States’ powers to legislate on municipalities, which are local bodies governing towns and cities.

Se

Supreme Court Observer - Justice Nariman Holds that State Election Commissioners Should be Independent, Criticises the Manner in Which Goa Municipal Elections were Notified

The Supreme Court this month, affirmed that State Election Commissioners should be independent. Further, that the bar against interfering with elections would not apply if the Court was acting in ‘furtherance of the election proceedings’. The judgment in State of Goa v Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh was delivered by Justice Rohinton Nariman on behalf of the three-judge bench, with Justices Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy.

11 municipalities in Goa were due to end their term on 4 November 2020. Elections were po

Supreme Court Observer

On 13th March, Justice Indu Malhotra will retire from the Supreme Court of India. Her judgments are known for their brevity, clarity and thoroughness.

In this post, we look at some of her most notable judgments.

In Rajnesh v Neha, the court dealt with the provision of maintenance after divorce. Justice Malhotra’s judgment in the case issued detailed guidelines on maintenance for women and children. It streamlined the multiple legislative schemes and provides detailed procedures to ensure speed

Supreme Court Observer - Maratha Reservation Constitutional Challenge Case Day 2 Arguments 16 March 2021

In 2018, the State of Maharashtra passed the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018 ('SEBC Act') to extend reservations to the Maratha community. Specifically, the State Legislative Assembly granted Marathas 16% reservations in education and public employment.

Various litigants challenged the SEBC Act before the Bombay High Court. After 40 days of oral arguments, the High Court delivered its judgment in 2018. It upheld the Act but reduced the percentage of seats reserved for Mara

Supreme Court Observer

In 2018, the State of Maharashtra passed the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018 ('SEBC Act') to extend reservations to the Maratha community. Specifically, the State Legislative Assembly granted Marathas 16% reservations in education and public employment.

Various litigants challenged the SEBC Act before the Bombay High Court. After 40 days of oral arguments, the High Court delivered its judgment in 2018. It upheld the Act but reduced the percentage of seats reserved for Mara

Supreme Court Observer

In 2018, the State of Maharashtra passed the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018 ('SEBC Act') to extend reservations to the Maratha community. Specifically, the State Legislative Assembly granted Marathas 16% reservations in education and public employment.

Various litigants challenged the SEBC Act before the Bombay High Court. After 40 days of oral arguments, the High Court delivered its judgment in 2018. It upheld the Act but reduced the percentage of seats reserved for Mara

Supreme Court Observer

In 2018, the State of Maharashtra passed the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018 ('SEBC Act') to extend reservations to the Maratha community. Specifically, the State Legislative Assembly granted Marathas 16% reservations in education and public employment.

Various litigants challenged the SEBC Act before the Bombay High Court. After 40 days of oral arguments, the High Court delivered its judgment in 2018. It upheld the Act but reduced the percentage of seats reserved for Mara